BUSH WATCH...Inside Bush Watch
hoot | 'toon | comment | features | today's news | writers | bushreport | us | contact |
As Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
writes in the conservative Telegraph (UK), "
As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger had the particular task of safeguarding the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. As Pope, Benedict XVI has a larger task: to be pastor of the universal Church, a bridge-builder and a peacemaker. Any attempt to paint him as belonging to this or that ideology will inevitably founder. It will become apparent, in his papacy, that this is a man who has drunk for a long time over many years from the wellsprings of the Catholic tradition, and that he represents only one party - that of Jesus Christ."
Forgive me for my skepticism, perhaps honed by spending 12 years in Catholic schools, but I recall another world leader telling us that he would be a uniter rather than a divider, and began two terms in office supposedly reaching out to those who believed differently than he did, only to formulate policies that further separated neighbor from neighbor, groups from groups, countries from countries. We can only hope that using words of unity and acts of division will not prove to be the link between an archconservative President and an archconservative Pope. --Politex, Bush Watch, 04.25.05
Ruminations: First, it's clear that the wealthy heads of U.S. corporations have sold out American workers for overseas production profits, and the Wal-Martization of the distribution chain results in an increase of the population of the lower economic class, while increasing the rate of rewards for those at the top. Secondly, foreign countries are getting wise. Like U.S. investors, they're getting rid of their dollars for Euros, creating new forms of currency (the Arab states), or going to massive barter systems (South America). It's clear that the various wars we're engaged in are as ultimately about the form of currency used to buy oil, as oil, itself. When foreign countries stop supporting our consumer/borrowing economy by switching from the dollar to something else, we've had it, and Bushonomics is helping them to do so in the name of our muntinational corporations, corporations, ultimately, that live in the country of the bottom line, not the U.S.A. --Politex, 04.11.05
Ruminations:
Ruminations:
Bushworld lies, distortions, and hypocrisies just go on and on: a director of anti-gay Republican campaigns marries his male partner, 12 states sue Bush's EPA for its failure to regulate carbon dioxide under the clean air act, a government program designed to allow children to live in pesticide-infested sorroundings which had been approved by Bush's nominee to head the EPA was named CHEERS, and the man Bush wants to be our ambassador to the UN has said, "if the UN building in New York lost 10 storeys, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".
Bush and his backers are willing to say anything it takes to get the job done, even if what they say is the opposite of what they are doing. Bush's indifference towards the truth behind his words is similar to what he recently said in finding a defense for to his falling approval ratings: "You can pretty much find...what you want..." --Politex, 04.09.05
Ruminations:
Ruminations: The Leopard Pope
Can the new leopard Pope change his spots? Seen as an ultra-conservative for decades, quoted as saying Buddhists and Muslims have taken the place of Communists as the Catholic Church's enemies # one, anti-Kerry Bush-backer during the last election, and predicted to be helpful to Bush's Evangelistic desire to tear down the wall between church and state in America, now we're being told that, as Pope, he's expected to be more concillatory, that he plans to reach out to moderates and liberals, to be the religious leader of all Catholics, not just the ultra-conservatives.
previous ruminations
Yesterday on the radio syndicated historian Thom Hartman provided an overview on Bushonomics, where it came from and where it's going: In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, we pretty much had a lower class that lived on the edge from paycheck to paycheck and a gilded upper class, with most goods being produced abroad. After the Great Depression up through the 70's, most goods were produced in this country and there was a rise in a middle class, as production profit was shared by workers and corporations. Since Reagan and through Bush, the middle class is fading out, the upper class is accumulating more and more wealth, and more and more goods are being produced abroad. Hartman gives us 5 to 10 years before the next Great Depression, as the rest of the world continues to work out how to get out from under the falling dollar. He suggests higher tarrifs might save us, but I find that doubtful.
Today's "Oil War" headlines tell us what we need to know: "Signs that US drivers are changing their habits as gas prices soar" (BBC) is followed by "Oil industry sizes up U.S. coastlines" (MSNBC). During the presidential debates in 2000 there were numerous questions about the rising cost of oil and its affect upon a reasonably-priced supply of heating oil in the Winter months to come. Bush's response was that as a Texan with many years of family and business experience in the oil industry, he was in a position to talk turkey with the oil folks and jawbone the price down. Of course, as president he did nothing of the kind. As oil prices hit all time highs today, we still experience absolute silence on the matter from the oval office. The reason is obvious: Bush is a creature of the oil industry and his job is to help keep oil prices up to give Congress and industry an excuse to pass more dilling laws on protected land, polluting the environment in the name of progress and the economy. As they say in Texas, you dance with the one that brung you. --Politex, 04.10.05
Bush praises the Pope's "culture of life" and compares himself with the Pope when the man's dead and can't defend himself. Part of the Pope's culture of life was to criticize Bush's culture of death for going to war against Iraq, for approving of executions, and for his mistreatment of the poor. Too typically, Bush's snappy sound bite phrases, based on a technique honed back in Texas under the tutelage of spinner Karen Hughes, suggest the opposite of what he does. A NYT editorial this morning says that Bush is "killing off housing for the poor" while Bush translates that into "ending chronic homelessness." Similarly, the Bush-backing GOP Senate is responding to "recent sprees of gun mayhem in churches, schools and courthouses" by "preparing to revive a craven proposal to shield irresponsible gun manufacturers and dealers from accountability," another NYT editorial reports, continuing Congress' drive of "making things easier for potential terrorists and other sociopaths."
Bush Spinner: Both Pope John Paul and President Bush have supported the Culture of Life.
Reporter: But Scott, Mr. Bush supports government executions and the Pope was against them.
Bush Spinner: This sad moment is not the time to discuss issues.
Reporter: But Senator, the Pope called the War in Iraq "immoral."
Bush Senator: This is hardly the time to consider possible differences between these great men.
Guest: The Pope preached against rampant corporate consumerism and its effects upon the poor and our environment. Does Mr. Bush support that position?
Fox Anchor: I can't believe you're attempting to construct a wall of ignorance between our President and the world during this time of stress and world unity.
--Politex, April 8, '05 (paraphrase of actual news footage run on The Daily Show)
Ruminations:
Guess I'll cross out Florida as a place to visit. Of course, living in Austin, Texas, I suppose my state will be next to turn the street outside my house into an approved killing zone. I remember sleepily attending an early morning garage sale one Saturday morning, and in my haste parking my car too far away from the curb. The guy running the garage sale asked my to park closer to the curb, and I told him I'd only be a minute. He turned around and went toward his house, shouting, "I'm gettin' my gun." I quickly left. Next tine, I guess I'll have the option of drawing a gun, 'cause "I should not have to retreat." --Politex, April 7, '05 previous ruminations
Jeb's fixin' to sign a bill that, as the BBC puts it, allows folks to "kill in self defense on the street." Of course there already was a law allowing Flordians to kill in self defense at home, in their car, or at their place of work. Previously, the official position of the State of Florida was that if you feel threatened by "force", you should run away. Now you can shoot. As Dennis Baxley, the Republican sponor of the bill explains, "If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat." Democratic state Rep Dan Gelber of Miami Beach replied, "For a House that talks about the culture of life it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill."
Previous Ruminations: This is just the latest example of Bush doublespeak, where he says one thing for one audience, while his spokesperson(s) say(s) another thing for another audience. In this case, the Bush doublespeak is doubled, since he has demonstrated, time and time again, that he has no respect for treaties, and claims that the U.S. will not be governed by foreigners through treaties, but is perfectly willing to use them as a foreign policy club when it suits his purposes. Let's call this "Boltonization" in the name of Bush's nominee to the UN who has articulated this very principle of doublespeak in his past anti-UN comments. At any rate, what we're left with is the Bush Administration's belief that in the ME there are two hostile forces facing off with nuclear devices, Israel and Iran. Thus, any rationale U.S. foreign policy must clearly admit to that fact, both in the U.S. and throughout the world, rather than continuing its politicized doublespeak, and construct a viable method of control over the use of such devices, regardless of Iran's membership or Israel's lack of membership in the NPT. --Politex, April 5, '05
Israel has yet to admit that it has nuclear weapons, so it comes as a pleasant surprise that two members of the Bush administration have done so: "Twice in the past two weeks, US State Department officials [Jackie Wolcott Sanders, Bush's special rep for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and Mark Fitzpatrick, US acting deputy assistant secretary for nuclear proliferation] urged India, Pakistan and Israel to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and forego the use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons," writes Anwar Iqbal in today's DAWN.
Iqbar concludes, "The statements of the two officials contrast with President Bush's own reference to the NPT in a speech he made on March 7, when he called for enforcing the treaty's provisions on NPT members, which include both Iran and North Korea. Mr Bush did not refer to his policy regarding non-member states, which include Israel, Pakistan, and India."
Previous Ruminations:
Last night's PBS documetary on Air America had a scene in which talk show hostess Randi Rhodes opines that whatever Bush says, believe the opposite, and you have a better chance of being right than Bush. We've held that view since 1998. Along the same lines, Bush usually nominates people for a major position on the basis of how opposed they are to that position. For example, he has selected judges with a bias against the constitution, anti-environmentalists to protect the environment, and folks who have been accused of human rights and civil rights violations to protect human and civil rights. Today's "Democracy Now!" reports that John Bolton, Bush's nominee to the UN, said in 1994: "There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interest...." --Politex, April 1, '05
Previous Rumination:
Today we lead with stories about the growing impulse towards a theocrtatic society in America, with John Danforth, a three-time GOP Senator, former US ambassador to the UN, and minister, writing, ""Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians." I'm reminded of the Chriscon invasion of the nation's public school boards during the Clinton administration, when the Chriscon candidates portrayed themselves as anything but in order to get elected, then tried to institute their repressive, ill-advised theocratic policies once elected. After a few years of misery, the more rationale general public removed such Chriscons from school board office. Presently, of course, school boards are small potatoes, as the Chriscons are now attempting to take over our nation's government, itself. We can only hope that more rational thinking will again prevail. --Politex, March 31, '05
Previous Rumination:
An abundance of stories today on corporate greed and manipulation reminds me of Bush's place in the scheme of things. In 1998 I wrote that he was the matre'de in the corporate cafeteria, but he, himself, has characterized his role as that of the cheerleader for the policies of those who have put him in office. Under Bush, corporations are being given more rights and protections as though they were individual citizens, while they take away the rights and protections of individual citizens through Bush-approved corporate legislation. --Politex, March 30, '05
Previous Rumination:
A Bush Watch reader writes in and asks, "Why can't you report more positive news?" Christine, ever the optimist, says, "You're too negative."
My reply: I'll leave the positive stuff to the spinners, but more importantly, there are not enough positive happenings to save us, but there are more than enough negative happenings to sink us. Think of Bush Watch as an early warning system. --Politex, March 29, '05
"[Terri Schiavo's situation] is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wisest to always err on the side of life." --G. W. Bush
"By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week." --Digbysblog
"Many have noted that Bush exhibits a strange fascination with death, and like Caligula, he seems to enjoy executing people. As a boy George W. Bush had fun sticking firecrackers into frogs and blowing them up and shooting them with a BB gun. His youthful Cruelty to animals was a mere precursor to his later adult cruelty to human beings. As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush was known as the 'Texecutioner' setting a record in all fifty states with 152 executions, the most people ever killed by a Governor. During an interview with Talk magazine, he exhibited what could be characterized as sadistic tendencies. Writer, Tucker Carlson described Bush mimicking Karla Fay Tucker's final pleas for her life, 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.' Of course her execution proceeded. Again during the 2000 presidential debates when he spoke of executing people, an odd change came over him. 'The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them?' Bush paused and grinned at the camera... 'They're going to be put to death,' he proclaimed with satisfaction." --Retort Magazine
Tom DeLay, the other day,
Said "moral responsibility,"
And his mouth
Burst into flames.
--Jerry Politex, 03.21.05
Texan Tom DeLay, presently House Majority leader and former exterminator who once said DDT was perfectly safe, served in the Texas House for six years. He has voted "yes" on making death penalty appeals harder and "no" on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. In the past year the House ethics committee issued three admonitions to him and he's presently defending himself from a fourth infraction. The NYT reports that "Mr. DeLay is clearly relishing the change in subject from [possible infractions of the] House travel rules and [his] lobbying ties to a conservative crusade" in the name of the parents of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose cerebral cortex is liquified and is described by docters as being in a "persistent vegetative state."
Last Night On "Boston Legal" (ABC)
"Alan Shore travels to Texas with Chelina Hall to make a last ditch appeal for death row inmate Zeke Borns, a man with diminished mental capacity who was convicted of a crime he does not even remember committing." The prisoner is executed under Texas law.
AARP Redux: Bush Social Security Opponent Fights Back
In a recent NYT piece, Maureen Dowd summarized reports of a well-funded Bush-backing ad campaign to smear AARP, the senior lobby group, because it's opposing Bush's Social Security plan. Reports in the Washington Monthly and the New York Tiomes piece together the story of drug companies slushing millions into a conservative lobby group that has hired key members of the Bush-backing Swift Boat Vets to spend up to $10 million for ads to bring AARP down. The first such ad recently appeared on the American Spectator web site, saying that AARP was anti-troops and pro-gay. Now, an anonymous e-mailer assures us that someone favoring the AARP position has joined the ad war, sending us a transcript of an upcoming, kinder, gentler (and more relevant) pro-AARP video ad. --Jerry Politex
SCENE: A typical American kitchen in a suburban home. John and Marsha, an attractive couple in their 30's, are reading the morning newspapers while seated at the kitchen table next to an open window.
JOHN: (reading) It says here that President Bush is going to do something about the Social Security problem.
MARSHA: (continuing to read) That's good news. Frankly, I've been worried.
JOHN: But he wants to privatize part of Social Security, which has nothing to do with meeting the predicted shortfall in 2042. Wish there were some way we could tell Bush what we think.
SCENE: While John has been speaking, a large duck has landed on the window sill and is staring at the couple, who continue to read.
DUCK: (looking frustrated) Aarp! Aarp!
MARSHA: I agree. If only we could let Bush know his promise that we could pass our stock savings on to our heirs is factually incorrect.
DUCK: (louder, even more frustrated) AARP! AARP!
JOHN: Oh, Well. I guess we could write a letter to the editor.
DUCK: (shouting and waving his wings) AARP! AARP!
SCENE: While John and Marsha continue to read, a man who looks like Bush in an Uncle Sam costume appears outside, grabs the duck around the neck, and they both exit.
DUCK: AAWK!
VOICE OVER: Don't let this happen to you. Join the good folks at AARP.com to make sure Bush hears you loud and clear!
END
Official Outside Observers At The Polls: 1 (one) for the entire country. Afghanistan had 122, Palestine had 800. (WP)
Adult (age 18+) Population of Iraq: 13+ Million, 2003 (UNICEF est.), 15+ million (age 14+), 2004 (CIA est.)
Eligible Voters*: 15 Million, est., based on previous UN ration list. (see * below)
By Percent, 2004: Shia, 65; Sunni, 20; Kurds, 15 (NZH est.)
Percentage Of Iraqi Votes By Adult Population: 8 million would represent 57%, based upon an adult population of 14 million, or 53%, based on 15 million.
Registered Voters*** Outside Iraq: 240,000, 26,000 In U.S. 1.2 Million eligible worldwide, but only 35,000 reportedly have registered. (AP)
Number of Votes Ouside Iraq: Not yet available
Percentage Of Outside Votes By Adult Population: Not yet available
Percentage Of Total Vote: Not yet available
Percentage Of Outside Votes By Non-Iraqis: Unknown
* "All Iraqis over 18 years old on Jan. 1 are eligible to vote -- perhaps some 15 million of a population of about 27 million. "Authorities have used a Saddam-era database for food rationing to create an initial voter roll. Heads of households collect their 2005 ration cards from 548 distribution centers around the country starting Monday, and voter registration clerks will be waiting with fact sheets on each family. If there are mistakes, the voter roll will be corrected." (AP)...There is one national ballot, without constituencies. Voters cast one vote for a list of candidates put forward by a party or coalition....Most parties reflect sectarian and ethnic divides....Voters will choose 275 members of a national assembly, whose key task will be to debate and approve a new constitution. They will also choose members of 18 provincial assemblies and the autonomous Kurdish parliament in the north." (New Zealand Herald)
** 111 parties listed, not clear how many candidates specified. Many voters came to the polls with little idea who was running. Many candidates did not have their names listed for fear of their lives. According to Egyptian news source Al-Ahram, few candidates have campaigned. However, reports Al-Ahram, U.S. favorite Allawi, the current prime minister, is campaigning freely. He has appeared at universities and on TV, and his interim government is participating in his campaign.
*** Outside Iraq: To register to vote, you don't have to be a citizen of Iraq or even be born in Iraq if you're at least 18 and your father was born in Iraq, but he doesn't have to be a citizen of Iraq, either. (AP)
Who's Lying, Al Gonzales Or Three Lawyers and A Judge?
While Governor of Texas, Bush was asked to participate as a citizen, a possible member of a jury, in a Travis Country trial. He failed to fill out much of the Travis Country questionnaire, including the part that asks if he had every been "accused" in a criminal case. Of course he had, his DUI conviction in Maine. According to three lawyers and a judge, Al Gonzales, Bush's chief counsel at the time, requested a meeting with the judge and at that meeting requested that his client be excused from jury duty. Knowing that, Bush stood outside the courthouse and told local KVUE-TV reporters, "I'm just an average guy showing up for jury duty." Bush told Dallas Morning news reporter Wayne Slater, who later wrote a biography of Bush, "I'm glad to serve. I think it's important. It's one of the duties of citizenship."
Ken Oden, Travis County's lead prosecutor on the 1996 drunk driving case in which Bush was called as a potential juror, has described the meeting between Gonzales, the Judge, and defense and prosecution lawyers inside the Judge's chambers:
"During the 1996 jury selection process, Oden says, [prosecution lawyer] Lastovica, Gonzales, defense lawyer Wahlberg and Judge Crain met in Crain's chambers at the request of Gonzales. In chambers, Gonzales presented his pardon argument. A few minutes later, Lastovica presented the information to Oden for approval. Gonzales' pitch was a 'legal argument relating to his [Bush's] position as governor that none of us had ever heard,' recalled Oden. 'My response was, 'That's an unusual argument.' In 20 years of prosecuting in a town full of government officials, I'd never heard that position before.' 'Our position was that as a matter of courtesy to the governor we would not oppose his request for release from service. At that point, not knowing that he hadn't answered the questionnaire, or having other motives, he was released,' he said...." Oden "charged...that Bush's failure to answer some of the questions on his jury questionnaire, coupled with [Gonzales'] efforts to get Bush excused because he might someday be called on to pardon the offender, were part of an effort to deceive prosecutors and others. Bush 'used his position as governor' to avoid having to answer potentially embarrassing questions about his past, Oden told Salon. 'I feel I was directly deceived...." --Salon's Robert Bryce
Four years later, defense attorney Wahlberg affirmed that both Bush and Al Gonzales "asked the judge to excuse Mr. Bush": "Mr. Bush was called for jury service in a 1996 drunken-driving case in Austin but was dismissed from the panel before the potential jury members were questioned about their histories of drinking and driving. P. David Wahlberg, the defense attorney who struck Mr. Bush from the 1996 jury panel, said Thursday that he did so after the governor and the governor's lawyer asked the judge to excuse Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush had initially said he would perform jury service, Mr. Wahlberg said. But, he said, on the eve of trial, the governor's lawyer, Al Gonzales -- later appointed by Mr. Bush to the Texas Supreme Court -- asserted that it would be improper for a governor to sit on a criminal case in which he could later be asked to grant clemency." --Dallas Morning News, 11/3/00
Now, Michael Isikoff reports that Judge Crain and the two lawyers present back Oden's version of the story: "Crain--along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica--told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."
Of course, many Texans knew what was going on. Bryce reminds us of one major newspaper's coverage of the courthouse event: "The Houston Chronicle reported at the time that Bush's dismissal by the court was 'a development that allowed him to avoid potentially embarrassing questions about whether he had ever climbed behind the wheel after drinking....' At the time, the public didn't know that what was being covered up by Bush and Gonzales was Bush's DUI conviction in Maine.
Yet, in Gonzales' written account of the event, sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee at the request of Sen. Leahy as it looked at the Bush nomination of Gonzales to the office of Attorney General, he "wrote that he had accompanied Bush the day he went to court "prepared to serve on a jury." While there, Gonzales wrote, he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not, Isikoff reports.
According to Isikoff, "the judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed [the] written account of the matter provided by Gonzales: "It's a complete misrepresentation," said David Wahlberg,... about Gonzales's account. Isikoff goes on to report:"Judge Gonzales has no recollection of requesting a meeting in chambers," a senior White House official said, adding that while Gonzales did recall that Bush's potential conflict was "discussed," he never "requested" that Bush be excused. "His answer to the Senate's question is accurate," the official said.
So, who are you willing to believe? Bush and Gonzales, who have a record of lies, as we have reported here and in our book, BIG BUSH LIES, or three lawyers and a judge, who don't? And what does this tell us about the ethics and credibility of the man the Republican members of congress want to be the next Attorney General, not to mention those Dems who will support such a nomination? --Jerry Politex, 01.26.05
Bush Watch is a daily political internet magazine based in Austin, Texas, a non-advocacy site paid for and edited by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Contents, including "Bush Watch" and "Politex," (c) 1998-2005 Politex. The views expressed herein and the views in stories that you are linked to are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bush Watch. Permission of author required for reprinting original material, and only requests for reprinting a specific item are considered. The duration of the working links is not under our control. Bush Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site is at your own risk.
Send all e-mail to Politex.